2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 184K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
I think we may start to see a difference in WWC polling in the Midwest than in the South and other more solidly red areas. That’s bad for Trump, of course, as he must have some success against the Blue Wall to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if he really is losing that much support from among the role, white, non college educated folks, even if that just means that they don’t turn out to vote for him as opposed to actually voting for Harris, he is going to get wiped out.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Takes like this continue to bug me because they assume the polling companies haven’t adjusted their models since 2016 and 2020. Yes, Kamala will need to win the popular vote by a few percentage points to win the EC. But we truly have no idea how big of a lead she needs in the polls to reflect that popular vote margin. If the polling companies have adjusted correctly, her current lead, if it stays constant, is probably enough. But we won’t know if they adjusted correctly until after the election.
 
CFordUNC said:
Right, of course not, but the point is that if he’s losing significant ground to Harris in Texas of all places, imagine what’s happening in places where he is in much higher danger of losing. Places like North Carolina and Georgia, to say nothing of the other battleground states.
Click to expand...
Plus, if it gets much closer in Texas and/or Florida, the Trump campaign is going to have to spend money in those expensive ad markets to defend those states. If Trump lost either, it would be game over and likely a landslide. Imagine what a Democratic campaign would look like if it had to spend serious money in California, Illiinois, or New York? That's what Trump's campaign looks like now. All of Trump's money should be going into swing states he lost in 2020, not into states he WON in 2020.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
Plus, if it gets much closer in Texas and/or Florida, the Trump campaign is going to have to spend money in those expensive ad markets to defend those states. If Trump lost either, it would be game over and likely a landslide. Imagine what a Democratic campaign would look like if it had to spend serious money in California, Illiinois, or New York? That's what Trump's campaign looks like now. All of Trump's money should be going into swing states he lost in 2020, not into states he WON in 2020.
Click to expand...
Precisely!
 
lawtig02 said:
Takes like this continue to bug me because they assume the polling companies haven’t adjusted their models since 2016 and 2020. Yes, Kamala will need to win the popular vote by a few percentage points to win the EC. But we truly have no idea how big of a lead she needs in the polls to reflect that popular vote margin. If the polling companies have adjusted correctly, her current lead, if it stays constant, is probably enough. But we won’t know if they adjusted correctly until after the election.
Click to expand...
Well it IS Cillizza after all
 
lawtig02 said:
Takes like this continue to bug me because they assume the polling companies haven’t adjusted their models since 2016 and 2020. Yes, Kamala will need to win the popular vote by a few percentage points to win the EC. But we truly have no idea how big of a lead she needs in the polls to reflect that popular vote margin. If the polling companies have adjusted correctly, her current lead, if it stays constant, is probably enough. But we won’t know if they adjusted correctly until after the election.
Click to expand...
Chris Cillizza is a bosiding dumbass. Electoral College politics is really pretty simple: win the swing states and defend your turf, win the election. Every other result is pretty much noise. Unless Trump flips some states he lost in 2020, and particularly in the blue wall, he loses again. Theoretically, Harris could win every state Biden won by one vote and lose every state that Trump won by 99% and win the election.

National polls MIGHT give a "sense" of the electorate but little else. The REAL 2024 election takes place in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada.
 
HeelingAg said:
Precisely why I no longer give much attention to national polling. I can assume pollsters made adjustments, but I don’t know. Yes, it’d be nice to see a 7pt lead, and that would likely portend a strong EC victory, but I’m much more interested in margins within about eight states.
Click to expand...
One thing I’m curious about when it comes to polling (and why I also to some Degree downplay polling numbers): I’ve talked to many of my friends about it, and ultimately all of them who get invited to participate in a poll and decline or ignore them are all voting blue, while my red acquaintances are more than willing and even search out the opportunity to talk a poll they are voting for Trump. How do they take this into consideration? I feel like the dem numbers, as good as they are, are probably underrepresented
 
UNCMSinLS said:
Chris Cillizza is a bosiding dumbass. Electoral College politics is really pretty simple: win the swing states and defend your turf, win the election. Every other result is pretty much noise. Unless Trump flips some states he lost in 2020, and particularly in the blue wall, he loses again. Theoretically, Harris could win every state Biden won by one vote and lose every state that Trump won by 99% and win the election.

National polls MIGHT give a "sense" of the electorate but little else. The REAL 2024 election takes place in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. Barring a major shift in momentum, I actually think the whole election is now down to Pennsylvania, but we’ll see where it goes from here. I’m hoping we got the tidal waves out of the way early.
 
CLT Heel said:
One thing I’m curious about when it comes to polling (and why I also to some Degree downplay polling numbers): I’ve talked to many of my friends about it, and ultimately all of them who get invited to participate in a poll and decline or ignore them are all voting blue, while my red acquaintances are more than willing and even search out the opportunity to talk a poll they are voting for Trump. How do they take this into consideration? I feel like the dem numbers, as good as they are, are probably underrepresented
Click to expand...
I think that is what has really changed since 2016, which was the total opposite
 
At this point, it’s getting hard to tell whether some pundits are just hopelessly pessimistic by nature, or if they are being recreationally contrarian. There is no objective way to look at the aggregate polling data, the crowd sizes at the Harris rallies, the groundswell of grassroots volunteers, the jaw dropping fundraising numbers, and the overall energy, excitement, and enthusiasm permeating through the Democratic base, and not believe that Harris is currently leading and pulling away. At this point it would take one of the most dramatic reversals fortunes that we have ever seen in modern American politics for Donald Trump to regain the edge. Sure, it’s possible. But it is becoming more and more improbable with each passing day.
 
quakerdevil said:
This is misleading. Closing the gap does not equal chance of winning
Click to expand...
Totally agree. But as I said above, closing the gap in a place like Texas may not ultimately lead to Texas going blue, but if the same trend exists in similar states like North Carolina and Georgia that are already purple and trending blue, or even Florida and Ohio, it’s really bad news for the Trump campaign and it probably means they are going to get their ass kicked.

Plus, every extra dollar or appearance that the Trump campaign has to spend in a place like Texas, is one less dollar and appearance that it can spend in a state that actually matters for the electoral college outcome. And considering the Trump campaign has already spent the last two weeks campaigning in battleground states while Dementia Don hides in the basement at Mar-a-Lago, they have a ton of ground to make up in swing states and they are running out of time to do so.
 
CLT Heel said:
One thing I’m curious about when it comes to polling (and why I also to some Degree downplay polling numbers): I’ve talked to many of my friends about it, and ultimately all of them who get invited to participate in a poll and decline or ignore them are all voting blue, while my red acquaintances are more than willing and even search out the opportunity to talk a poll they are voting for Trump. How do they take this into consideration? I feel like the dem numbers, as good as they are, are probably underrepresented
Click to expand...
MUST ... NOT ... ENGAGE ... AND ... SHARE ... MY ... THOUGHTS ... ABOUT ... POLLING ....

Surprised GIF by ABC Network
 
CFordUNC said:
At this point, it’s getting hard to tell whether some pundits are just hopelessly pessimistic by nature, or if they are being recreationally contrarian. There is no objective way to look at the aggregate polling data, the crowd sizes at the Harris rallies, the groundswell of grassroots volunteers, the jaw dropping fundraising numbers, and the overall energy, excitement, and enthusiasm permeating through the Democratic base, and not believe that Harris is currently leading and pulling away. At this point it would take one of the most dramatic reversals fortunes that we have ever seen in modern American politics for Donald Trump to regain the edge. Sure, it’s possible. But it is becoming more and more improbable with each passing day.
Click to expand...
Trump has three main problems right now.

1. Everybody knows him and almost everyone’s thoughts about him are fully formed, so he has virtually no chance to increase the number of people who will vote for him.

2. Trump uses the machine gun-style of political rhetoric, which means he has nothing new to play right now. He’s become boring and stale. And he’s made it clear he’s unwilling to change his style.

3. He’s committed to a deeply negative dystopian view of America that almost nobody actually experiences. Voters clearly want a hopeful message about where we’re headed, and Trump’s message is all about where we’ve been.

I just can’t see 1 or 2 changing before November. 3 could, but it would take an enormous event of global significance. That could happen any time, but the longer we go, the smaller Trump’s window becomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top